The fact that you consider equal rights for homosexuals to be “taking an action at the expense of society overall” makes you a bigot.
PRCalDude wrote:
The definition of bigot is as follows:
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
So BB is “utterly intolerant” of homosexuality because he doesn’t think gays should get married?
Also, if I’m utterly intolerant of a creed like, say, Nazism, isn’t that a good thing? Doesn’t it depend on the creed I’m being “utterly intolerant” of? I’m not comparing homosexuality with Nazism, but the term “bigot” can actually be a complement. Suppose I was intolerant of a creed that said, “kill or subjugate unbelievers.” I would take the term “bigot” to be complementary.
I’m starting to wonder if words have meanings to liberals. I think I know the answer. [/quote]
Don’t worry about Cap’n Crunch. He’s just here to provide comedy. I doubt he wrote a thesis, but if he did, I’m sure the grading sheet was something akin to “Mentioned homophobia - check - 10 points; mentioned sexism - check - 10 points; mentioned the patriarchy - check - 10 points; called Republicans Nazis - check - 10 points; called conservatives bigots - check - 10 points; called Republicans bigots - check - 10 points; called conservatives Nazis - check - 10 points; blamed Republicans for AIDS - check - 10 points; attributed “isms” for the problems of the “disenfranchised” - check - 10 points; etc.”
Historical Construct of marriage? Wow. I’m still getting this vibe that you consider only “Christian” marriage to be “right”. Horseshit.
And please, don’t pull out the “other cultures promote pedophilia and such” card, because the issue of consent is first and foremost. Human rights trump any and all religious rights.
If some dumb cunt wants to marry a five year old, he CAN’T because we live in a society where religion and state are separated. The girls basic rights come first, no?
Also, the essence of marriage doesn’t have anything to do with race, and none of the policy goals have anything to do with race. Race is irrelevant to marriage. Gender differences are the essence of marriage. Just a little bit different.
jsbrook wrote:
Says who? Once again, marriage is a social construct. It is what people believe it to be. Many would say monogamy, unyielding committment, and sharing is the only ‘essence’ of marriage.
You’re right, in the social sense. History and social practice throughout the millenia have defined marriage as the relationship between a man and a woman - even in the polygamous context, the actual marriage was between one man and one woman, in all the cases of which I’m aware, with the polygamy coming in with the allowance of further marriages. I’m sure if we stretched our brains, we could come up with some possible pragmatic reason for this…
But in any case, yes, some would like to change the historical construct of marriage. And they may; and if it’s done via the democratic process, I may disagree because of the possible problems posed for traditional marriage (see my previous posts in this too long thread), but I would have had my say. What marriage is not is an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution to an individual (the mere idea that a legal status invented for couples would be seen as an individual right says a lot). I’m fairly sure you’d agree with this last point, but I’m restating it here anyway.[/quote]
Yeah, I’d tend to agree. Though, I do think it’s a bit bizzare. I personally feel marriage is right up there with other rights that have been deemed fundamental and subject to strict scrutiny. Or at least intermediate scrutiny.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Historical Construct of marriage? Wow. I’m still getting this vibe that you consider only “Christian” marriage to be “right”. Horseshit.
And please, don’t pull out the “other cultures promote pedophilia and such” card, because the issue of consent is first and foremost. Human rights trump any and all religious rights.
If some dumb cunt wants to marry a five year old, he CAN’T because we live in a society where religion and state are separated. The girls basic rights come first, no?[/quote]
He’s probably right on this one. Even in tribal cultures where polygyny and polyandry both were widely practiced, you don’t really see very many homosexual unions. Like I said before, I’m a proponent of gay marriage. But it’s true that you really don’t see it. This is not only limited to Judeo-Christian cultures.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
He’s probably right on this one. Even in tribal cultures where polygyny and polyandry both were widely practiced, you don’t really see very many homosexual unions. Like I said before, I’m a proponent of gay marriage. But it’s true that you really don’t see it. This is not only limited to Judeo-Christian cultures.[/quote]
And that’s why I believe in true separation of Religion and State. I’m certainly not saying a Church/Mosque etc. has to recognize gay marriage, that’s up to them.
I think your Judeo-christophobia comes from the fact that you’re a Hindu. Feel free to pack up and move to a majority Hindu area if Western values are so offensive to you. Maybe it’s just your irrational bigotry against our values that’s the problem.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I think your Judeo-christophobia comes from the fact that you’re a Hindu. Feel free to pack up and move to a majority Hindu area if Western values are so offensive to you. Maybe it’s just your irrational bigotry against our values that’s the problem. [/quote]
I’m a bit slow, so I’ll need you to explain just HOW I’m a Judeo-Christophobe.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I think your Judeo-christophobia comes from the fact that you’re a Hindu. Feel free to pack up and move to a majority Hindu area if Western values are so offensive to you. Maybe it’s just your irrational bigotry against our values that’s the problem.
I’m a bit slow, so I’ll need you to explain just HOW I’m a Judeo-Christophobe.[/quote]
How do I explain anything to a bigot? In order to explain something to someone I have to assume that that ‘someone’ is, in fact, rational.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I call you a bigot because you openly bash a specific group of people and make no distinctions between the fuckwits and the normal ones.
Where have I made attacks against Christianity or Judaism?
I figured as much.[/quote]
You start foaming at the mouth every time one of us mentions that the West has a history of Judeo-Christian values from which we derive a certain moral consensus. You’ve given no rational reason why we ought to abandon these, therefor you fit the definition of a bigot to a ‘T’. Seems the height of arrogance that a Hindu of immigrant extraction is telling Westerners how we ought to live. Seems the height of hypocrisy that the follower of a religion that adheres to a caste system preaches to us about equality. Oh well. Continue your vitriol.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
You start foaming at the mouth every time one of us mentions that the West has a history of Judeo-Christian values from which we derive a certain moral consensus. You’ve given no rational reason why we ought to abandon these, therefor you fit the definition of a bigot to a ‘T’. Seems the height of arrogance that a Hindu of immigrant extraction is telling Westerners how we ought to live. Seems the height of hypocrisy that the follower of a religion that adheres to a caste system preaches to us about equality. Oh well. Continue your vitriol.[/quote]
Foaming at the mouth? Lol wut.
Your “moral consensus” for slavery comes from where? Gay-bashing? The fact that homosexual sex was illegal? I’m not saying abandon your religious freedoms, just understand that human rights come first. No religion is perfect, and I’ll be the first to admit Hinduism has its flaws, but that fact remains that you’re so stuck in your ways that you fear change.
The Caste jibe is good. Despite the fact that the current caste system is actually a result of the British (read: Christian) occupation of India and Sri Lanka.
Ooh, I guess that one fell flat on it’s face. Better luck next time? I suggest you study about what your making fun of next time.
For those interested: Secular and religious critics have accused many Christians of being hypocritical. For instance, although marital fidelity and family values are arguably central to Christian morality, a study by the Barna Research Group has shown that divorce rates among certain Christian groups were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than the rate of divorce amongst atheists and agnostics. Tom Whiteman, a Philadelphia psychologist found that the primary reasons for Christian divorce include adultery, abuse(including substance, physical and verbal abuse), and abandonment whereas the number one reason cited for divorce in the general population was incompatibility.
Oh my. I guess your marriage system isn’t the perfection you imagine it to be. And I guess divorce is a snap for kids to go through, too.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states “men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies … must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
Hm. Maybe you should listen.
Prior to the rise of Christianity, homosexuality had been, quite often, an acceptable expression of sexuality, in ancient Rome and ancient Greece. There is evidence that same sex unions have occurred since the beginning of recorded history in Egypt, China, Greece, Rome and Japan. Famous lovers include the Egyptian couple Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum and the Greek couple Harmodius and Aristogiton. The first recorded use of the word “marriage” for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period.
Wait, I thought marriage never included homosexuality?
The reason the West has been able to become so affluent is because of it’s ability to adapt.
Now, if I was really aiming to bash Christianity, I’d start a thread about it. Then I’d start delving into inconsistencies in the Bible, because that seems like a good place to start. Then I’d talk about all the unfulfilled prophecies, talk about science, women, slavery, and so forth.
But I don’t, because unlike you, I don’t go out of my way to rag on another persons faith. And there is a difference between pointing out that your forcing something on people and saying “Christianity is wrong and all followers are barbaric and close-minded”.
[quote]Wait, I thought marriage never included homosexuality?
[/quote]
I’m not sure you have the IQ for this discussion, but I’ll attempt it anyway. We’ve never said that there was never any homosexual marriage, we’ve stated that in the past 20 centuries of Western civilization, or at least since the rise of Christianity some 15 centuries ago, we’ve had the definition we’re using now. Since you don’t bother to read anything anyone’s written here, I suppose you won’t read this either. BB, Thunderbolt, and I have all made roughly the same assertion at some point. The ancient Greeks and Romans practiced pederasty as well, so I see no reason we ought to use their values as some sort of moral standard for ourselves, though you have demonstrated a propensity for promoting various creeds that embrace such things.
What a surprise, blame-shifting. And you Hindus have liked it so much you decided to keep it. I googled “caste system,” and I (unsurprisingly) found several articles that differ on its origin. You’ve chosen the origin that fits your worldview.
Oh, I can’t wait for such a thread. I’ll bet your knowledge of Christianity is even less extensive than that of Islam. What are you waiting for?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I’m not sure you have the IQ for this discussion, but I’ll attempt it anyway. We’ve never said that there was never any homosexual marriage, we’ve stated that in the past 20 centuries of Western civilization, or at least since the rise of Christianity some 15 centuries ago, we’ve had the definition we’re using now. Since you don’t bother to read anything anyone’s written here, I suppose you won’t read this either. BB, Thunderbolt, and I have all made roughly the same assertion at some point. The ancient Greeks and Romans practiced pederasty as well, so I see no reason we ought to use their values as some sort of moral standard for ourselves, though you have demonstrated a propensity for promoting various creeds that embrace such things.[/quote]
Sigh.
I’m merely pointing out that homosexual behavior has always been around. I don’t use my imperfect religion as a justification to bring about inequality.
Pedophilia is wrong because children aren’t… wait for it… sexually mature. And I’m not just talking about growing some more hair and a voice change, I’m talking about mental maturity as well. You know, those thing that parents need to raise kids properly?
Homosexuality is wrong because… um… it’s different?
Actually, I chose the origin that fit in with the historical time line. I have this annoying habit of doing that, and for that I (sarcastically) apologize.
The varna system is a part of the organization of Hindu society as prescribed (not required) by the Hindu scriptures. Every society even today has intellectuals, scholars, priests (i.e. Brahmins), soldiers (i.e. Kshatriyas), businessmen (i.e. Vaishyas) and laborers (i.e. Shudras). The supposed purpose of the varna system was to ensure an efficient organization of society. It was misinterpreted by people, and that is why it is often criticized, because some people failed to interpret it correctly. The varna system was never rigid and there are significant historic instances of people moving from one varna to another. Some of the notable examples are Sage Valmiki; the author of the great epic Ramayana who was initially a wood-cutter and a robber, Sage Vyasa; the author of the epic Mahabharata, who was the son of a fisherwoman (who herself went on to marry a king later on), Sage Parashurama, a Brahmin who went on to become one of the greatest warriors etc. The greatest example is perhaps Lord Krishna, who was bought up as a cow-herd. He is depicted in many paintings as a young cow-herd playing a flute.
Also: The fluidity of the caste system was affected by the arrival of the British. Prior to that, the relative ranking of castes differed from one place to another. The castes did not constitute a rigid description of the occupation or the social status of a group. Since the British society was divided by class, the British attempted to equate the Indian caste system to the class system. They saw caste as an indicator of occupation, social standing, and intellectual ability.
Oh my, I guess I was right. And yes, people did keep it because they got greedy and power hungry. I’m sure that doesn’t happen in your perfect little world.
In order to keep this thread from being hijacked about Hinduism, go and start your own “Non-Christianity bashing” thread if you want to discuss other religions shortcomings.
What am I waiting for? Do you even read my posts? Didn’t I say I don’t go out of my way to bash another persons faith?
Do try and read what I actually write, and not skim over it and try and guess what I’m saying.
So pedophilia is wrong because kids aren’t sexually mature. Doesn’t sexual maturity come from practice? What does “maturity” even mean? There’s plenty of people that are over the age of majority that aren’t mature emotionally, physically, or emotionally. Does that mean that they should be legally barred from having sex?
Who here was discussing the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality? You’re the one fixated on that, not me.
[quote]Actually, I chose the origin that fit in with the historical time line. I have this annoying habit of doing that, and for that I (sarcastically) apologize.
The varna system is a part of the organization of Hindu society as prescribed (not required) by the Hindu scriptures. Every society even today has intellectuals, scholars, priests (i.e. Brahmins), soldiers (i.e. Kshatriyas), businessmen (i.e. Vaishyas) and laborers (i.e. Shudras). The supposed purpose of the varna system was to ensure an efficient organization of society. It was misinterpreted by people, and that is why it is often criticized, because some people failed to interpret it correctly. The varna system was never rigid and there are significant historic instances of people moving from one varna to another. Some of the notable examples are Sage Valmiki; the author of the great epic Ramayana who was initially a wood-cutter and a robber, Sage Vyasa; the author of the epic Mahabharata, who was the son of a fisherwoman (who herself went on to marry a king later on), Sage Parashurama, a Brahmin who went on to become one of the greatest warriors etc. The greatest example is perhaps Lord Krishna, who was bought up as a cow-herd. He is depicted in many paintings as a young cow-herd playing a flute.
Also:
The fluidity of the caste system was affected by the arrival of the British. Prior to that, the relative ranking of castes differed from one place to another. The castes did not constitute a rigid description of the occupation or the social status of a group. Since the British society was divided by class, the British attempted to equate the Indian caste system to the class system. They saw caste as an indicator of occupation, social standing, and intellectual ability.
Oh my, I guess I was right. And yes, people did keep it because they got greedy and power hungry. I’m sure that doesn’t happen in your perfect little world[/quote]
Blah, blah blah. This website makes a completely different claim, you’re just choosing the one you like:
[quote]Didn’t I say I don’t go out of my way to bash another persons faith?
[/quote]
Yeah, except that you’ve got no problem bashing another person’s civilization that bases many of its values, literature, and art on that faith. You get practically apoplectic when one of us suggests that we’ve got a certain Judeo-christian historic consensus here. Go back to a Hindu country if you can’t stomach it.
Conservatism in general is rooted in avoidance of the hubris of assuming one has enough understanding of complex institutions that have evolved over generations to monkey with their essences, as well as a healthy appreciation of the law of unintended consequences.
wirewound wrote:
Note that this ALWAYS places conservatism on the losing side of history. Insofar as we have made progress, conservatism has been a hindrance. This means that anytime effort is put forth to create a new system to correct the mistakes of the old system, conservatism is a hindrance.
The Romans and Jews that rejected Christ were conservatives. In the Revolutionary War, the conservatives were the Tories. In the Civil War, the conservatives were the Confederates. In the battle for civil rights, the conservatives were the southerners who wanted to continue segregation. Always and eventually, the conservatives lose. No wonder they’re so fucking pissed all the time.
I think it’s hubris to think that changing the institution of marriage to include homosexuals would be more damaging to marriage than, say, a consumerist culture that encourages discarding the old and replacing it with the newest model. Can marriage really be expected to survive in a society where one is always expected to obtain the newest and best of everything?
In the end, it doesn’t matter what the conservatives think, because in the end, the conservatives ALWAYS lose. That warms the cockles of my heart.
Interesting little reality you’ve constructed for yourself there - I suppose at least your cockles are nice and toasty inside…
First, while it may make you feel good to essentially define progress as movement, they aren’t synonymous. A change can be for the worse - and when progressives win, it often is, if not in whole cloth then at least in large measure.[/quote]
Ending slavery was a change for the worse? Ending segregation was a change for the worse? Greater religious freedom was a change for the worse? The enlightenment was a change for the worse?
I’m curious though - name a conservative victory that increased the liberty and freedom of the people. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, just that I can’t think of one of the top of my head. Maybe you can?
It does often take a bit of investigation to see when a conservative victory had a consequential effect on the growth of a nation. Here’s one though: Britain’s reliance on coal. It was an old energy economy that fueled Britain’s greatness, but holding on to it well past it’s prime caused Britain to lose out as petroleum and other energy economies and their attendant technologies rose to prominence. This was very much a ‘victory’ for conservatism, as the economic power structure at the time was the force responsible for clinging to coal.
[quote]It may eventually change, or it may stay the same, or circumstances may change that either make the concerns irrelevant (w/r/t polyandry, another large war knocking out a large percentage of the male population would be that type of change) or moot the desire to change at all. When conservatives lose and are correct, society changes - maybe for the worse, but no one is noting that but perhaps a bunch of grumpy old guys who lost that particular battle - unless conservatives lost and a societal tipping point was reached, like the fall of the Roman Empire, for instance.
When progressives lose and drop a cause, no one notes it really. It’s only the big changes that are noted. But their noting doesn’t mean that they always or inevitably happen. Change, yes - the type of change you want or envision? Maybe not - how do you suppose all those Islamic immigrants into the Western European “countries of tolerance” view gay marriage? What’s the fertility rate over there again?[/quote]
True, and I agree with the conservatives regarding immigration. Liberal immigration policy is suicidal.
I didn’t realize ‘who cares’ was a legitimate debate technique. If the example was facile, a legitimate counter-point should be EASY to produce.
I didn’t define the Civil War (or the War of Northern Aggression, as the Southerners are fond of calling it) as simply a conflict between progressives and conservatives. The South may have had radical ideas, but those ideas were not in favor of creating greater liberty for a greater number of people - they served the interest of maintaining the social and economic status quo and hence can be considered ‘conservative’ ideas.
My argument is that broadening the constituency that has access to marriage is not a primary danger to the institution. A consumerist, ‘newest-greatest-best’, ‘upgrade at the earliest convenience’ cultural climate is far more damaging.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Good. No one here is either.[/quote]
You’re claiming that civilization will fall if the homos get married. Then you spout some shit about Bible this, Judeo-Christian that and get pissed when I suggest that it’s not all about you and your faith.
From practice? Hell no. It comes from be emotionally and physically ready to do the deed. Quite frankly, yes, I do believe some people should be barred from procreating or at least raising their children.
What does that leave the kids with? Adoption. Not ideal, but better than being raised by morons who shouldn’t have had kids in the first place.
I’m not the one arguing that the western world will fall down a slippery slope to ruin from allowing gays to marry.
[quote]Blah, blah blah. This website makes a completely different claim, you’re just choosing the one you like:
Oh dear. You’ve found one of those conservative websites where the writers are biased toward post-colonial attitudes. Try finding a less biased source. And like I said before, start your own thread on Hinduism and it’s shortcomings if you must.
I can handle the Judeo-Christian aspect just fine thanks, it’s the general xenophobia that I find rather strange. I bash the fact that a select few individuals care so much about what happens in another household when it isn’t hurting anyone.
I know you tend to miss things, so here it is again: I bash the fact that a select few individuals care so much about what happens in another household when it isn’t hurting anyone.
Wow. Just wow.
And in case you missed it: I bash the fact that a select few individuals care so much about what happens in another household when it isn’t hurting anyone.
[quote]wirewound wrote:
My argument is that broadening the constituency that has access to marriage is not a primary danger to the institution. A consumerist, ‘newest-greatest-best’, ‘upgrade at the earliest convenience’ cultural climate is far more damaging.[/quote]
No, no. Marriage will implode on itself and the Western world will crumble and be reduced to dust. Planes will fall out of the sky and all will perish.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I’m merely pointing out that homosexual behavior has always been around. I don’t use my imperfect religion as a justification to bring about inequality.
Good. No one here is either.
Pedophilia is wrong because children aren’t… wait for it… sexually mature. And I’m not just talking about growing some more hair and a voice change, I’m talking about mental maturity as well. You know, those thing that parents need to raise kids properly?
So pedophilia is wrong because kids aren’t sexually mature. Doesn’t sexual maturity come from practice? What does “maturity” even mean? There’s plenty of people that are over the age of majority that aren’t mature emotionally, physically, or emotionally. Does that mean that they should be legally barred from having sex?
Homosexuality is wrong because… um… it’s different
Who here was discussing the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality? You’re the one fixated on that, not me.
Actually, I chose the origin that fit in with the historical time line. I have this annoying habit of doing that, and for that I (sarcastically) apologize.
The varna system is a part of the organization of Hindu society as prescribed (not required) by the Hindu scriptures. Every society even today has intellectuals, scholars, priests (i.e. Brahmins), soldiers (i.e. Kshatriyas), businessmen (i.e. Vaishyas) and laborers (i.e. Shudras). The supposed purpose of the varna system was to ensure an efficient organization of society. It was misinterpreted by people, and that is why it is often criticized, because some people failed to interpret it correctly. The varna system was never rigid and there are significant historic instances of people moving from one varna to another. Some of the notable examples are Sage Valmiki; the author of the great epic Ramayana who was initially a wood-cutter and a robber, Sage Vyasa; the author of the epic Mahabharata, who was the son of a fisherwoman (who herself went on to marry a king later on), Sage Parashurama, a Brahmin who went on to become one of the greatest warriors etc. The greatest example is perhaps Lord Krishna, who was bought up as a cow-herd. He is depicted in many paintings as a young cow-herd playing a flute.
Also:
The fluidity of the caste system was affected by the arrival of the British. Prior to that, the relative ranking of castes differed from one place to another. The castes did not constitute a rigid description of the occupation or the social status of a group. Since the British society was divided by class, the British attempted to equate the Indian caste system to the class system. They saw caste as an indicator of occupation, social standing, and intellectual ability.
Oh my, I guess I was right. And yes, people did keep it because they got greedy and power hungry. I’m sure that doesn’t happen in your perfect little world
Blah, blah blah. This website makes a completely different claim, you’re just choosing the one you like:
Didn’t I say I don’t go out of my way to bash another persons faith?
Yeah, except that you’ve got no problem bashing another person’s civilization that bases many of its values, literature, and art on that faith. You get practically apoplectic when one of us suggests that we’ve got a certain Judeo-christian historic consensus here. Go back to a Hindu country if you can’t stomach it. [/quote]
You had a lot of good and valid points earlier in this thread. But your animosity towards this guy has really caused you to lose your mind and say some pretty outrageous and ridiculous crap. You’re making yourself look ridiculous.
I said, if you were paying attention, that we have no data on what will happen one way or the other, and that I actually didn’t care if they did get married as long as it didn’t have adverse effects on the rest of society. I, unlike you, feel that it’s best left well enough alone because it’s a rather fundamental building block of society and the gays already have it good here. They just want to change things for everyone else.
It’s certainly not all about me and my faith, but as you fail to realize, Michelangelo, Handel, Bach, et al weren’t using Mohammed or Krishna as their muse. If you tour any Western art exhibit, you’ll see so many Biblical scenes that it might burn your eyes out.
Right. So we’ve established “age of majority” based on some other standard besides yours and Mohammed’s.
Actually, it was the majority of us here in California who voted. Literally millions of us wanted it left alone. The select few are the judges who want it changed.
Except for when we use it as one of the most prominent historical bases for our civilization. Like I said
Actually, it was the majority of us here in California who voted. Literally millions of us wanted it left alone. The select few are the judges who want it changed.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter. The majority of a society cannot wish away the rights of the minority in this country. That’s LITERALLY what the courts are here to insure. That’s not legislating from the bench, that’s restricting legislation that never should have been put forth in the first place.
I better never hear you whining about India or other countries ejecting Christian missionaries.
Of course, it doesn’t matter because Americans are free to practice whatever religion they like. It is what makes us better than other countries and it really shouldn’t be culled from our national character.
“You say ‘love it or leave it’,
I get beat up if I criticize it,
You say you’ll fight to the death to save a useless flag,
You wanna banana republic that bad,
Why don’t YOU go move to one?”